Talk Nation Radio: Tressie McMillan Cottom on For-Profit Colleges and the Society That Produces Them

https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-tressie-mcmillan-cottom-on-for-profit-colleges-and-the-society-that-produces-them

Tressie McMillan Cottom is the author of Lower Ed: The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy. We discuss her book.

See:
http://thenewpress.com/books/lower-ed

Total run time: 29:00

Host: David Swanson.
Producer: David Swanson.
Music by Duke Ellington.

Download from LetsTryDemocracy or Archive.

Pacifica stations can also download from Audioport.

Syndicated by Pacifica Network.

Please encourage your local radio stations to carry this program every week!

Please embed the SoundCloud audio on your own website!

Past Talk Nation Radio shows are all available free and complete at
http://TalkNationRadio.org

and at
https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/tracks

Is Advocating Humane Policies Inhumane?

Until I remember that I, too, am a human being, I have been with increasing frequency drawn to the conclusion that human beings have evolved with such an obsession with other individual humans that they simply cannot attribute proper importance to far-reaching policies.

If you want to excite a crowd, you don’t tell them that virtually every official in Washington is in complete and harmonious agreement on massive military spending, more nuclear weapons, occupying Afghanistan, bombing Iraqis, bombing Syrians, bombing the hell out of Yemenis, and drone murdering at will. That’s about as interesting as subsidizing fossil fuels and rendering the earth uninhabitable. Who cares!

If you want some sign of life out of an audience, you tell them that a particular politician is an idiot or a clown or a racist or a sadist or a misunderstood saint. Now, that has value.  That has meaning.

Virtually every U.S. citizen, as far as I can tell, would choose a republic over a democracy, a dictatorship over a republic, and a dictator who gives intelligent humanitarian speeches while enacting horribly destructive policies over a dictator who sounds like a jerk or a moron while enacting less destructive policies.

Sure, we may be headed right for the iceberg, but the Captain sure is witty!

In fact, the actual captain of the Titanic is still remembered for his personality more than his captaining. Woodrow Wilson is in our history books for things he said, while what he did gets very little mention. Barack Obama will be written up as a president who spoke against nuclear madness, even though (1) he didn’t, and (2) he worked to create more nukes, including smaller, more “usable” nukes.

The corrosive impact of personality may be more lasting than many imagine. I supposed that there would be at least three upsides to a president Trump: no TPP, less hostility toward Russia, and the return to activism of those who opposed wars as long as Bush was president. Not only have the Democrats pushed Trump into hosility toward the demonized Vladimir Putin, but the return of the anti-Republican-war activists is beginning to look over-anticipated.

Where are they? Have they learned to accept all the ongoing permanent wars? Are they waiting for a new war to oppose?

I’ll tell you where they are. They’re lurking just around the corner. Announce a comedy performance mocking the stupidity of Donald Trump and his Russian lover, and they’ll come running. They’ll arrive in droves.

 

 

Our Causes Are Connected, Our Movements Should Be Too

Global corporations and international government alliances are pushing war, environmental destruction, economic exploitation, defunding of schools and housing, hateful divisive ideologies, and reductions in rights and liberties as a package wrapped in shiny foil, tied with a bow, and advertised in hundreds of different advertising media.

. . . and in this corner we have local and national organizations, segregated by race and other demographics, raising pitiable sums to fund nonprofit work, each to work against one or another particular item out of the package. Occasionally a movement will propose to take on two or three items at once but be shouted down with cries of “WHAT IS YOUR ONE DEMAND!?”

In my view, not only was Thomas Jefferson right to list all of King George’s wrongs, not only was Martin Luther King Jr. right to propose taking on militarism, racism, and extreme materialism all together, but the way to an effective movement — not just a larger movement, but a coherent movement with a vision for a better future — is to go multi-issue, big-tent, cross-border, and otherwise “intersectional.”

We’re facing environmental disaster. It might be mitigated by a massive investment in clean energy. The only possible source of the kind of money needed is in the institution that is currently doing the most environmental damage — so, taking its funding away serves a double purpose. I’m talking, of course, about the military, to which Trump’s budget would give over 60% of discretionary spending. For what? For “stealing their oil” and “killing their families.” Once you start opposing killing families, the remaining purpose for the military stands out as rather anti-environmental.

But that 60% of discretionary spending is also why the quality of life, life expectancy, health, and happiness of people in the United States doesn’t match up with its level of wealth. You’ve heard all about the wealth hoarded by the billionaires. It’s a drop in the bucket. Throwing the military $700 billion a year, year after year, explains not having free college, free clean energy, free fast trains, beautiful parks, wonderful arts, a basic income guarantee, and why the U.S. isn’t leading the world in actual foreign aid rather then begrudging it a stingy token. I don’t mean that we could choose one of these other things instead of military spending. I mean that we could choose all of them. I’d gladly give Donald Trump the leftover billions too just to shut up. Who cares? The world would be a wonderful place.

I usually don’t include healthcare in the list of things we could fund because we’re already over-funding it. We’re just funding a corrupt system of private insurance companies that wastes a lot of it. This corrupt system is the result of a corrupt system of government defended by increasingly militarized police cracking down on the use of the First Amendment. Failing to connect these issues leaves us fumbling in the dark. Refugees from U.S. wars are blamed for their suffering and then used as justification for more wars.

The wars are fueled by racism and in turn fuel greater racism and bigotry, which does its damage within the United States and at the locations of its wars and its bases around the world. Part of the bigotry fueled by war for centuries is sexism. Part of what keeps the wars going is perverse machismo. We should trace the roots of these fears, as many of those roots can be found in military spending to just the same extent that the lack of funds for teachers can.

Yet we try to address the erosion of civil liberties as though it stands alone. What would be the justification for spying on everyone, for example, if there were no enemies? It sounds fantastic, I suppose, but numerous nations that are not at war do not have enemies. The United States should try it sometime, if only for the novelty.

There is another serious result of putting our resources into wars, though, and that is the generation of so many enemies, so much hatred, such widespread hostility and resentment. There is, of course, a way to overcome the fear of terrorism, and that is to stop engaging in the terrorism that produces blowback.

There is no divide between foreign and domestic. There is no pro-war environmentalism, or crony capitalist human rights work, or racist peacemaking. If the absence of The One Single Demand troubles someone, give them the single demand that they go read a book.

Chasing a Northern Confederate Out of the South

The Washington Post proclaims: “Protesters mob provocative Va. governor candidate as he defends Confederate statue.” Six seconds of video of the incident involved is likely to show up eventually here or here.

I was there on Saturday shouting down the “provocative” celebrator of racism and war, together with my kids and some friends. The only hostility I saw came from supporters of keeping the giant statue of Robert E. Lee in the park here in Charlottesville.

This was an email I had sent around the night before:

“Republican Candidate for Governor Corey Stewart is coming to Charlottesville Saturday to do a Facebook Live event at 10:00 AM in Lee Park to denounce the Charlottesville City Council for voting to remove a symbol of racism and war. Here’s a report on his efforts to deport immigrants. Here’s an announcement of Saturday’s event. Please show up at 9:45 and bring posters. Here are some ideas:
Black Lives Matter
Celebrate Racism and War Somewhere Else
Love Beyond Flags
Love Trumps Hate
Welcome Refugees, Not Bigots
make up your own!”

These were the chants that were chanted and which I joined in on:

“Hey Hey Ho Ho White Supremacy Has Got to Go!”
“You take Lee. We’ll take freedom!”

“Well what are you?” demanded a bewildered elderly white man of me when I opposed white supremacy and failed to be impressed by his showing me an American flag and shouting “This is an American flag!”

Presumably he didn’t suppose you could look at someone and tell that they were a white supremacist. Presumably he just didn’t make a distinction between being white and being a white supremacist. What am I? I’m a human being. You can put whatever antiquated labels you like on my appearance, but I’m not on your team if everyone isn’t.

“But he wasn’t a racist!” a woman explained to me about General Lee. Is that the point? To arrive at the mental state of the dead guy depicted in the sculpture? This monumental soldier on a horse was put in a whites-only park by a wealthy racist in the 1920s. And if that urban “benefactor,” too, was “not a racist,” that hardly impacts the fact that thousands of people are offended by the statue and its glorification of war — and of war for the maintenance and expansion of slavery.

“You don’t want war? Well, this statue makes people think before they go to war?” I was told.

“Yeah, a glorified giant on a horse does that?”

“Yes, look at how he’s contemplating.”

“A realistic depiction of war would show missing limbs and screams of agony.”

“Why in the world would you want to do that?”

“To make people think before they go to war.”

“But that’s what this does.”

Are these useful conversations? Perhaps.

Should we let racist, bigoted, glorifiers of war and demonizers of immigrants parade through our town denouncing democratic decisions like the one made after lengthy public debate to remove an old and obnoxious statue? Do we have to let Candidate Confederacy — actually a racist Northerner who claims to out-Trump Trump — have his video-op on the corporate news, and then wait our turn until we’re six feet under to offer an appropriate rebuttal?

I don’t think so. I don’t think this is that moment.

First they came for the Muslims and the pacifists. And we said: “Not this time!”

I spoke with a friendlier individual away from the Confederate flags and shouts of “Anti-American!” This person agreed with my point that wars make the United States less safe, but within the next breath came: “But my only concern is if some of the people serving in the military defending us might not like the idea of removing the statue.”

The wars are endangering us. The people fighting in them are “defending us,” even if they aren’t. This is what we’re up against. Un-indoctrinating people with troop propaganda requires conversations that don’t fit on television. Those are very worthwhile, but they take lots of time.

A political commercial for racism and war glorification is a different matter entirely. Let the would-be governor send his comments in via Skype. Our message is: Charlottesville is no place for that.

Yes, Positivity, Pangloss, Partisanship, Propaganda, and Populism

Eight years ago Yes! Magazine published a political platform of progressive policies, along with polling showing strong majority support for each proposal. Now, eight years later, we can show almost total failure to advance any of the proposals, most of which were focused on the U.S. federal government.

Where there have been any small successes, they have mostly come at the state or local level or outside the United States. New York State just took a step toward free college and Washington State toward shutting down fossil fuels while everyone was watching Donald Trump’s twitter feed. Most of the world’s nations are working on a new treaty to ban nuclear weapons from the earth, while Obama’s government has invested heavily in new nukes and (far more offensively, I’m told) Trump has tweeted about them.

The general federal-level failure in the United States is very clearly because the U.S. government in Washington D.C. is a financially corrupted and anti-democratic structure, and because the U.S. public is generally disinclined to hold it accountable. The United States enjoys remarkably less activism than many other countries, and suffers as a result.

A huge reason for the activism shortage is partisan loyalty. Of that minority of people who will do anything at all, many will only make demands of or protest members of one political party. For the other party all is forgiven. And most policy positions are utterly expendable at the slightest shift in the party line. Witness the current Democratic fever for believing the CIA on faith and desiring hostility toward Russia.

This partisanship masks the steady destruction of each area in that Yes! platform as it progresses unperturbed through presidencies of both parties alike.

Putting forth a positive program and pushing for it is exactly the right thing to do, and not for simplistic or mystical, but for very practical reasons. And informing each other that we are a secret majority is exactly right as well. But there is always a danger of Panglossian distortion in an attitude of positivity. The fact that someone can start an organic urban garden should not actually blind us to the fact that the taxes paid on the garden’s income will go toward preparing for wars, destroying the earth’s climate, imprisoning the garden’s neighbors, poisoning the garden’s water, and forbidding any honest definition of what “organic” means.

So it was with both eagerness and trepidation that I picked up the new book, The Revolution Where You Live, by the Cofounder of Yes! Magazine Sarah Van Gelder. It’s a book about local activism that doesn’t try to spin away the general context of growing apocalypse, but tries to find models for duplication and expansion. Some of the stories are familiar or from decades gone by when we know there was greater activism afoot. But some are neither familiar nor old. These tales of local organizing succeeding against economic, environmental, and racist evils should be far more present in our minds than some silly hope that Hillary Clinton be subtly impolite while celebrating with Trump at his inauguration.

These accounts collectively also seem to point to the critical importance of investing in local banks and divesting from evil corporations. This focus should be useful to activists in all fields.

Any Panglossianism in Van Gelder’s book is by omission and not unique to her but nearly universal. I refer of course to the fact that she has written about touring localities in the world’s war machine without ever mentioning it. Even in an account of admirable efforts to improve the treatment of refugees, there is no mention of how they became refugees. Van Gelder, like virtually all liberals in the United States sincerely and rightly laments the hoarding of wealth by the super rich and the subsidies given to destructive (non-war) industries, without ever remarking that all that hoarding is simply dwarfed by public spending on a program of mass murder that makes enemies of 96% of humanity — a program the likes of which has never been seen in any other time or place.

I don’t think local activism can succeed unless it impacts international and national policy, and in large part its activists don’t even intend to do that. Many have declared opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline an unqualified success as long as the earth-destroying monster is run through someone else’s backyard. Van Gelder asks a local activist what world she envisions, and she says she’s already in it — a testimony to the life-fulfilling nature of activism but also to the propaganda that has so many Americans convinced the status quo is not a fast train to catastrophe. Van Gelder asks another woman doing great work where power comes from, and she replies “It’s when your head, your heart, and your hands are aligned.”

That’s not false, but it’s lacking something. We could have thousands of people with their heads, hearts, and hands aligned and still destroy the climate, launch the nukes, or establish a fascist state. Power, I would say, comes from mobilizing enough people to take the right actions for change, inspiring others to help while dissuading those who would resist. I think local activism is far more a place to start than is generally imagined. I think elections, especially federal elections, have become largely a distraction. I think partisanship and the propaganda of corporate media are powerful poison. But I think viewing local or personal satisfaction as sufficient will be fatal. We need local and global action that understands itself as such. Or we need close collaboration between those who want to stop one pipeline and those who want to stop them all.

We also need to take advantage of new activism that will come from those who will, come January 20th, suddenly object to all sorts of horrible policies they’ve accepted amicably for the past eight years. But we need to nudge such people into a principled nonpartisan frame of reference that will allow their activism to last and succeed.

We should also be looking for ways to empower states and localities, including through secession, and through global activist alliances.

The hopeless wreck of a U.S. government infects the United Nations, of course, through its veto power and permanent membership on the “Security” Council. A reformed global body would undercut the power of its worst abusers, rather than empowering them above all others. In a preferable design, I think, nations with under 100 million population (roughly 187 nations) would have 1 representative per nation. Nations with over 100 million population (currently 13) would have 0 representatives per nation. But each province/state/region in those nations would have 1 representative answering only to that province/state/region.

This body would make decisions by majority vote and have the power to create chairs and committees, hire staff, and by three-quarters majority reshape its own constitution. That constitution would forbid war and participation in the production, possession, or trading of weapons of war. It would commit all members to assisting each other in making the transition to peaceful enterprises. The structure would also forbid violations of the rights of the environment and of future generations, and commit all members to collaborating on environmental protection, poverty reduction, population growth control, and aid to refugees.

This more-useful body for planetary preservation would facilitate education and cultural exchange programs, as well as the training and deployment of unarmed civilian peace workers. It would not create or collaborate with any armed forces, but would apply the rule of law equally and advance restorative justice through mediation and truth-and-reconciliation.

Any member or group of members would have the right to compel a vote on whether to create on a planetary scale any program that the member had itself created and shown capable of advancing disarmament, environmental protection, poverty reduction, population growth control, or assistance to those in need. Other members would be permitted to vote no only if they could establish that such a program had not worked in the province or country proposing it or could not work elsewhere.

Members would each choose their representative to a two-year term through clean, transparent, nonpartisan, and exclusively publicly funded elections open to all adults, verified by the public hand-counting of paper ballots at each polling place, including ranked-choice voting, and including on the ballot and in any debates all candidates qualified by the collection of the signatures of 1% of constituents.

All major meetings and proceedings would be live streamed and archived as video available online, and all votes be recorded votes. Member dues would be assessed based on ability to pay, with deductions for members’ success in meeting the goals of lower military spending (including through a member’s taxes to the nation it is part of), lower carbon emissions, greater equality of wealth, and greater aid to poorer members.

I’d like to see polling, even in the U.S. and other large nations, on public support for that sort of positive proposal.

Russians, By Fling — To the tune of "Russians" by Sting

In Liberal America, there’s a growing feeling of hysteria

Conditioned to accept whatever’s claimed

As long as it’s Donald and the Russians blamed

Mr. Putin says he’ll be friends with you

I don’t subscribe to this point of view

It would be such an ignorant thing to do

If the Russians hate their children too

 

How can I risk my little boy with Oppenheimer’s deadly toy

There is no monopoly in common sense

On either side of all the missile defense

We share the same biology

Regardless of ideology

Believe me when I say to you

The Russians hacked your cell phone too

 

There is no historical precedent

To put a stooge in the office of the President

There’s no such thing as a winnable war

It’s a lie we don’t reject anymore

Obama says we will protect you

I don’t subscribe to this point of view

Believe me when I say to you

I know the Russians hate their children too

 

We share the same biology

Regardless of ideology

What might kill us, me, and you

Is if the Russians hate their children too

Talk Nation Radio: Richard Cahan on the Forced Removal and Incarceration of Japanese Americans

https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-richard-cahan-on-the-forced-removal-and-incarceration-of-japanese-americans

Richard Cahan is a journalist who writes about photography, art and history. He worked for the Chicago Sun-Times from 1983 to 1999, primarily serving as the paper’s picture editor. He left to found and direct CITY 2000, a project that documented Chicago in the year 2000. Since then, he has authored and co-authored more than a dozen books, including Vivian Maier: Out of the Shadows and Richard Nickel’s Chicago. He also works as a curator, creating photo and exhibitions at Chicago museums.

We discuss the new photo book co-authored by Richard Cahan and Michael Williams, Un-American: The Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II.

Total run time: 29:00

Host: David Swanson.
Producer: David Swanson.
Music by Duke Ellington.

Download from LetsTryDemocracy or Archive.

Pacifica stations can also download from Audioport.

Syndicated by Pacifica Network.

Please encourage your local radio stations to carry this program every week!

Please embed the SoundCloud audio on your own website!

Past Talk Nation Radio shows are all available free and complete at
http://TalkNationRadio.org

and at
https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/tracks

Born on Home Plate

Remember the satirical “Billionaires for Bush” protesters? Around this time in 2008 I asked them to become Oligarchs for Obama, and they refused. But I predict Tycoons for Trump will be born this month. Inequality, like war and climate destruction, has its face now.

Chuck Collins’ book, Born on Third Base: A One Percenter Makes the Case for Tackling Inequality, Bringing Wealth Home, and Committing to the Common Good, presents the problem of inequality as well as any I’ve seen. Collins was born into wealth, gave it away, but still refers to himself as one of the wealthy, perhaps because of all the lasting privileges wealth brought him. Collins sites other examples, as well, of the wealthy putting their wealth to better use than hoarding.

Collins explains how a lot of philanthropy is, however, counterproductive, benefitting those least in need of it. He argues for a popular movement to create progressive taxation and progressive restraints on income. But he also makes a case for appealing to one percenters for solidarity, rather than demonizing them — apparently because this has proven to work better but also because it’s too late for anything else. Wealth has been so concentrated that without defections at the top it will never be truly shared again.

Collins also makes the best case I’ve seen for reparations. Donald Trump’s money, Collins writes, came from his father, who sold homes to white people who could only buy them because of government subsidized mortgages. Trump’s father also got military contracts to build houses for sailors. What Collins calls the Greatest Subsidized Generation (post World War II) — or at least the white portion of it — benefitted widely from subsidized mortgages and insurance, free college, and grants and loans from the Small Business Administration. Imagining that the racism of the day, rather than these willfully forgotten government programs, made America “great” (for some) is nonsensical.

Collins makes the case that the median wealth of white households is 13 times that of blacks in large part because of massive privileges handed to whites over the decades, including not so many years ago. And now the United States is becoming a caste society with extremely low economic mobility, and those castes parallel racial divides created by the benefits of government created wealth.

Collins paints a powerful portrait of how a wealthy childhood gives a person a permanent advantage. And he conveys the radically different, more convenient, more worry-free lives of those in the United States with great wealth. He later comes around to noting that many of those advantages are widely enjoyed in Europe. Collins argues that the wealthy are not fundamentally different from the rest of us, but his facts suggest that in fact they are. And the book’s foreword by Morris Pearl suggests to me a perspective I find it difficult to relate to. Pearl writes:

“I read about the Occupy movement in Zuccotti Park in the newspaper from the comfort of my Park Avenue apartment. When I have wanted to complain about something to President Obama, I have arranged to do it face-to-face.”

This suggests that there have been days on which Pearl did not want to complain about anything. Of course I can imagine meeting with Obama, but I can’t imagine only occasionally wanting to.

I also have a hard time relating to the phenomenon of the Missing Military as it exists in Collins’ and virtually every other liberal book published in the United States. Collins laments that $200 billion per year may be lost to the super wealthy hiding their wealth in tax havens. Collins never mentions the $1 trillion per year wasted on the murderous enterprise of militarism. In his to-do list at the end of the book, he has no mention of opposing militarism, but one of his items for us to do is to pay our taxes (because of all the good that supposedly comes of doing so).

There are some things, Martin Luther King Jr. said, to which we should not wish to become well adjusted. I include in that list all discussions of U.S. economics that erase the military.

Disobey or Die

Back in the winter of 1982, Air Florida flight 90 took off from National Airport. The first officer noticed dangerous readings on some instruments and pointed them out to the captain. The captain told him he was wrong, and he accepted the captain’s authority. He did nothing. Thirty seconds later the plane crashed into the 14th Street Bridge. Everyone on board died except for four passengers rescued out of the icy river.

During the latter decades of the 20th and first part of the 21st century, millions and millions of first officers on spaceship earth noticed that climate and nuclear dangers loomed. But every authoritative captain in sight, from elected officials to CEOs to media pundits, said “Don’t be a fool. I’ve got this.” And millions upon millions sat back and mumbled “Oh, all right, if you’re sure.”

The people pushing through the vote this week at the United Nations to create a treaty next year banning nuclear weapons are engaged in necessary disobedience to mainstream authority and acceptance. The people putting their bodies in the way of a pipeline in North Dakota are disobeying immoral orders.

Ira Chaleff’s book, Intelligent Disobedience, re-examines the lessons of the Milgram and Stanford prison experiments, and other more recent demonstrations of the severe dangers of uncritical obedience. Chaleff highlights some techniques that can facilitate intelligent refusals to obey.

When Milgram put the actor pretending to be given electric shocks in the same room, visible to the person ordered to shock him, obedience dropped by 40 percent. This suggests we need fewer trips to Disney World and more to Hiroshima, fewer student exchanges to England and more to Russia and Iran, fewer summer jobs at the local swimming pool and more at the nearest climate-impacted site in need of assistance.

Milgram also got obedience to drop by 20 percent by removing the authority figure from sight and having him deliver his orders by telephone. This does not suggest demonizing or antagonizing authority figures, but rather distancing and diminishing them. We need to metaphorically bring them down to size, and we need to physically and otherwise get away from them. Throw out your television to get their faces out of your living room. Read the news online as needed. Practice kneeling during the national anthem; it’ll give you a whole new outlook in which hearing a civilian refer to “our commander in chief” sounds frighteningly out of place.

Milgram reduced obedience by 100% by having a second authority figure contradict the first one. As long as people are going to practice subservient obedience, we need to identify and recruit and broadcast all apparent authority figures who contradict the destructive orders of the mainstream authorities. Who counts as an authority figure may vary from person to person, but we don’t have to choose. The more the murkier!

We also need to lead by example. Even when Milgram’s lone authority figure ordered shocks, if the subject of the experiment saw someone else refuse to obey, then 90% of the time he or she would also refuse. This is a huge opening for us. But it does not mean that we can create a little Eco village and thereby save the world. It does mean that doing that will help. But we need examples of people challenging the entire system that deals weapons and subsidizes fossil fuels. And we need lots of examples so that everyone watching can see someone who looks like them engaged in constructive disobedience.

In warfare, militaries condition people to obey immoral orders through, among other things, a number of distancing techniques. It’s easy to murder someone far away or unseen. It’s easier to order someone else to do it. It’s easier to be part of a group doing it together. It’s easier to think of it as defending someone else rather than simply committing murder. We have to reverse all of this distancing. We have to put the victims and potential victims of war and of climate chaos right up close to the vision of as many people as possible. We have to create unavoidable responsibility. The bill in the British parliament that would allow people to choose whether to pay war taxes is one possible approach. We have to make those engaged in ordinary, typical muddling through understand that as long as they fail to take radical action they are engaged in the slow but massive taking of human life.

We should replace the pledge of allegiance with the Nuremberg principles and the Hippocratic oath. The problem we have to solve is, as Howard Zinn told us, not too much civil disobedience, but too much civil obedience.

Talk Nation Radio: Samantha Nutt on the Harm of Weapons Dealing and Investment

https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-samantha-nutt-on-the-harm-of-weapons-dealing-and-investment

Samantha Nutt is an award-winning humanitarian, bestselling author and acclaimed public speaker. A medical doctor and a founder of the renowned international humanitarian organization War Child, Dr. Nutt has worked with children and their families at the frontline of many of the world’s major crises – from Iraq to Afghanistan, Somalia to the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sierra Leone to Darfur, Sudan.

Dr. Nutt is a respected authority for many of North America’s leading media outlets. In November 2015, Dr. Nutt spoke at TED Talks Live “War & Peace” at The Town Hall Theater in New York, which aired on PBS on May 30, 2016. Dr. Nutt’s TED Talk can be viewed on TED.com:

http://www.ted.com/talks/samantha_nutt_the_real_harm_of_the_global_arms_trade

Dr. Nutt’s critically-acclaimed debut book, entitled Damned Nations: Greed, Guns, Armies and Aid, was released by McClelland and Stewart Ltd. (a division of Random House) in October 2011 and was a #1 national bestseller in both hardcover and paperback. 

For more information, see www.warchildusa.org or www.samanthanutt.com

Total run time: 29:00

Host: David Swanson.
Producer: David Swanson.
Music by Duke Ellington.

Download from LetsTryDemocracy or Archive.

Pacifica stations can also download from Audioport when I’m able to get the audioport website to work, which is not this week.

Syndicated by Pacifica Network.

Please encourage your local radio stations to carry this program every week!

Please embed the SoundCloud audio on your own website!

Past Talk Nation Radio shows are all available free and complete at
http://TalkNationRadio.org

and at
https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/tracks